Originally Posted by
shadoweva00
To me it seems dependencies are the root of 99% of user problems not related to hardware.
If you took arguments that the average user didn't care about and would never need to know, there is no support for them whatsoever. If you can't talk about how shared and dynamic libraries work, how it saves what is probably less than a gigabyte, and can only talk about how the competitors of Mac and Windows require applications to ship with what you call dependencies, or security issues, how can you possibly defend them?
If the average user just wants it to work, and ubuntu wants to compete with Windows and Mac, why don't we have self contained install files as well? PCBSD has already done this, so it could be used as a model. They've literally already thought through the issues and finished the system.
Sorry, but it just defies reason that you're still hanging onto dependencies as better when they have such huge downsides that you must be ignoring. (server costs, people seeking help needing to use command lines, 3rd party packages that need renamed/merged dependencies. It's always ends up being a dependency problem)
Can you possibly defend them if you aren't thinking about technical details and only in terms of usability? I'm sure you can't, but let's see. To me it's just such a no brainer question, but if the Linux community keeps standing behind them for only technical reasons, they'll be keeping Desktop Linux from ever being a serious competitor.
(Anyone who mentions dll hell, shared/dynamic libraries, and security issues fails. Only usability issues are valid arguments here. (PCBSD found chroot jails fixed security problems))
Bookmarks